Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2022-01-05 DRBTOWN Of VAIP P: DESIGN REVIEW BOARD January 5, 2022, 2:00 PM Virtual on Zoom 75 S. Frontage Road - Vail, Colorado, 81657 Call to Order 1. 1. Register in advance for this webinar: https://us02web.zoom.us/webinar/register/W N_bAKS68BERc2RR1kKiFN6gg After registering, you will receive a confirmation email containing information about joining the webinar. 1.2. Attendance Present: Doug Cahill, John Rediker, Kathryn Middleton, Kit Austin, Peter Cope Absent: None Main Agenda 2.1. Landscape Determination - Vail Town Code 14-10-8 Call up the determination for further discussion on January 19, 2022. Applicant: Dominic Mauriello Planner: Matt Gennett John Rediker moved to approve. Peter Cope seconded the motion and it passed (5-0). 2.2. DRB21-0513 - Dolan Residence Final review of addition & e)derior alteration (roof awning/kitchen/windows) Address/Legal Description: 4278 Nugget Lane UnitA/Lot 3, Bighorn Estates Applicant: Robert & Amy Dolan, represented by LKMS Design, PC Planner: Jamie Leaman -Miller John Rediker moved to approve with the findings that the application meets Section 14-10-2. Kathryn Middleton seconded the motion and it passed (5-0). 2.3. DRB21-0496 - North Fifth LLC Final review of an addition Address/Legal Description: 303 Gore Creek Drive Unit 7/Lot 7, Block 5, Vail Village Filing 1 Applicant: North Fifth LLC, represented by Berglund Architects Planner: Greg Roy John Rediker moved to approve with the findings that the application meets Sections 14-10-3 and 14-10-4. Peter Cope seconded the motion and it passed (4-0). Abstain: (1) Austin 2.4. DRB21-0547 - Laird Residence Final review of a separation request Address/Legal Description: 1967 Circle Drive/Lot 24, Buffehr Creek Resubdivision Applicant: Stephen & Rebecca Laird, represented by Pierce Austin Architects Planner: Greg Roy John Rediker moved to table to January 19, 2022 or another date acceptable to the applicant. Peter Cope seconded the motion and it passed (4-0). Abstain: (1) Austin 3. Staff Approvals 3.1. DRB21-0436 -Altus Vail Final review of a business sign Address/Legal Description: 434 South Frontage Road East/Lot 1, Vail Village Filing 5 Applicant: Altus Vail, represented by Sign Design Planner: Jonathan Spence 3.2. DRB21-0448 - Hagedorn Residence Final review of an exterior alteration (hot tub/privacy fence) Address/Legal Description: 2658 Arosa Drive/Lot 3, Block D, Vail Ridge Subdivision Applicant: Brad Hagedorn Planner: Jamie Leaman -Miller 3.3. DRB21-0515 - Eagle River Water & Sanitation District Final review of an exterior alteration (repaint/sign) Address/Legal Description: 846 Forest Road/Lot 1, Eagle River Water & Sanitation District Subdivision Applicant: Eagle River Water & Sanitation District, represented by LKSM Design, PC Planner: Greg Roy 3.4. DRB21-0516 - Farhart Residence Final review of an addition Address/Legal Description: 4415 Bighorn Road Unit 1/Lot 2, Block 3, Bighorn Subdivision 3rd Addition Applicant: Ray Farhart, represented by LKSM Design, PC Planner: Greg Roy 3.5. DRB21-0522 - Pettersen Residence Final review of an exterior alteration (windows/doors) Address/Legal Description: 4690 Vail Racquet Club Drive Unit 8/Vail Racquet Club Condominiums Applicant: Michael & Kathryn Pettersen Planner: Jamie Leaman -Miller 3.6. DRB21-0524 - Forest Intl. LLC Final review of an exterior alteration (crawlspace access) Address/Legal Description: 45 Forest Road/ Lot 33, Block 7, Vail Village Filing 1 Applicant: Forest Intl. LLC, represented by Maximum Comfort Pool & Spa Planner: Jonathan Spence 3.7. DRB21-0529 - Spruce Creek Townhomes Final review of an exterior alteration (pole lighting) Address/Legal Description: 1750 South Frontage Road West/ Spruce Creek Townhomes Applicant: Spruce Creek Townhomes, represented by Fireside Properties Planner: Jonathan Spence 3.8. DRB21-0533 - Clapa LLC Final review of exterior alteration (patio doors) Address/Legal Description: 300 East Lionshead Circle Unit 7/ Lot 4, Block 1, Vail Lionshead Filing 2 Applicant: Clapa LLC, represented by Renewal By Andersen Planner: Jamie Leaman -Miller 3.9. DRB21-0535 - Kaufman Residence Final review of exterior alteration (windows) Address/Legal Description: 1498 Spring Hill Lane Unit B/ Lot 16, Block 3, Vail Valley Filing 1 Applicant: Andrew B. Kaufman Revocable Trust, represented by Renewal by Andersen Planner: Jamie Leaman -Miller 3.10. DRB21-0536 - Dimmig Residence Final review of an exterior alteration (windows/sliding door) Address/Legal Description: 3797 Lupine Drive/ Lot 4 & 5, Bighorn Subdivision 2nd Addition Applicant: Thomas & Jane Dimmig, represented by Nebo Construction Planner: Jamie Leaman -Miller 3.11. DRB21-0538 - Gonzales Trust Residence Final review of an exterior alteration (deck) Address/Legal Description: 2801 Snowberry Drive Unit B/Lot 9B, Block 9, Vail Intermountain Development Subdivision Applicant: Edwin D. and Kenda B. Gonzales Trust, represented by Martin Manley Architects Planner: Jamie Leaman -Miller 3.12. DRB21-0540 - Gerald R. Ford Amphitheater Final review of exterior alteration (reroof) Address/Legal Description: 530 South Frontage Road/ Unplatted - Ford Park Childrens Park & BFAG Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by Zehren and Associates Planner: Jonathan Spence 3.13. DRB21-0541 - Christy Sports Ski & Snowboard Final review of a business sign Address/Legal Description: 291 Bridge Street Unit C1/ Lot F -K, Block 5C, Vail Village Filing 1 Applicant: Plaza Lodge Associates LTD, represented by Broomfield Sign Co. Planner: Jonathan Spence 3.14. DRB21-0542 - 2007 Sunset LTD Final review of a exterior alteration (condenser) Address/Legal Description: 950 Red Sandstone Road Unit 38/Potato Patch Club Condominiums Applicant: 2007 Sunset LTD, represented by Eagle Mountain Plumbing & HVAC, I nc. Planner: Greg Roy 3.15. DRB21-0545 - Legacy at Vail Square Final review of a tree removal Address/Legal Description: 500 East Lionshead Circle/Lot 1 & 3, Block 1, Vail Lionshead Filing 1 Applicant: Lazier Lionshead Parcel L LLC, represented by OZ Architecture Planner: Jonathan Spence 3.16. DR1320-0097.001 - Marriott Residence Inn Final review of changes to approved plans (patio expansion/larger outdoor spa/fire pits) Address/Legal Description: 1783 North Frontage Road West/ Lot 9-12, Buffehr Creek Resubdivision Applicant: Vail Hotel Group LLC, represented by Porter Bros. Planner: Jonathan Spence 3.17. DRB20-0573-001 - LPL Revocable Trust Residence Final review of a change to approved plans (windows) Address/Legal Description: 44 West Meadow Drive Unit 1/Lot 1, Vail Village Filing 2 Applicant: LPL Revocable Trust, represented by Nedbo Construction Planner: Jonathan Spence 3.18. DR1321-0112.001 - 1058 Riva Glen LLC Final review of a change to approved plans (stone veneer/wood siding) Address/Legal Description: 1058 Riva Glen/Lot 2, Spraddle Creek Estates Applicant: 1058 Riva Glen LLC, represented by Suman Architects Planner: Jonathan Spence The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during regular office hours at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. The public is invited to attend the project orientation and the site visits that precede the public hearing in the Town of Vail Town Council Chambers. Times and order of items are approximate, subject to change, and cannot be relied upon to determine at what time the Design Review Board will consider an item. Please call 970-479-2138 for additional information. Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24-hour notification, dial 711. VAIL TOWN PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: 1/5/2022 ITEM/TOPIC: Register in advance for this webinar: httr)s:Hus02web.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN bAKS68BERc2RR1kKiFN6ga After registering, you will receive a confirmation email containing information about joining the webinar. VAIL TOWN PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: 1/5/2022 ITEM/TOPIC: Attendance VAIL TOWN PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: 1/5/2022 ITEM/TOPIC: Landscape Determination -Vail Town Code 14-10-8 ATTACHM ENTS: File Name Description Com Dev Landscaping Determination.pdf Staff Determination Email from Applicant - Staff Intermetation.pdf Public Comment TOWN Of 75 South Frontage Road West Vail, Colorado 81657 vailgov.com December 15, 2021 Dominic Mauriello Mauriello Planning Group, LLC via email to dominic@mpgvail.com Re: Determination regarding Vail Town Code § 14-10-8 Dear Mr. Mauriello, Community Development Department 970.479.2138 The purpose of this letter is to respond to your email of December 14, 2021, in which you requested a formal determination from the Community Development Department concerning the utilization of plantings under a deck to meet the minimum landscaping requirements. It is the determination of the Town of Vail Community Development Department that the plantings below a deck do not qualify as landscaping as it does not meet the intent of landscaping in Section 14-10-8. Specifically, "...The major objective of landscaping is to help reduce the scale of new structures, to assist in the screening of structures ..." Notwithstanding, decks are included in the landscaping definition (12-2-2) and may be utilized to meet the landscaping requirement, with limitations as noted in the definition. This determination is subject to appeal pursuant to Section 12-3-3 of the Vail Town Code. Sincerely, Matt Gennett, AICP Community Development Director 970.479-2146 From: Dominic Mauriello To: Grea Roy; Matt Gennett; Matt Mire; Jonathan Spence Cc: Allison Kent; Hans Berglund; Grea Perkins Subject: Staff Interpretation Date: Thursday, December 16, 20213:01:31 PM Hi Greg, Matt, and Matt: Thank you for sending this administrative decision to us. At the meeting yesterday, you told the DRB that the Ford project does not meet the landscaping requirement which caused the project to be tabled. The staff is being very definitive about its interpretation of 14-10-8 which is a design "guideline" and which is being described as an "intent" statement. In our experience, it is the DRB who decides whether something meets the intent of a design guideline with staff making its recommendation to the DRB. In this case, staff has substituted its judgement in arriving at a final decision rather than having the DRB evaluate whether a project meets the intent of a design guideline. We think the staff has erred in this regard. Based on the discussions to -date with staff, it is quite clear that staff is interpreting the definition of "Landscaping" by interpreting that second, third, fourth, etc. "decks" (an undefined term in the code) are the same as the "decks" referenced in the definition which is characterized as "core development" (typical at -grade hard surfaces) and restricted 20% of the landscaping requirement. As you are aware we have very recent examples where staff and the DRB approved landscaping below an upper story deck and counted it as non-core development (aka, softscape). One example is the Shirley residence next door to the Ford residence as recent at 2019. We can provide you with the approved Shirley plan. Here is the definition of landscaping: 12-2-2 Definitions: LANDSCAPING: Natural or significant rock outcroppings, native vegetation, planted areas and plant materials, including trees, shrubs, lawns, flowerbeds and ground cover, shall be deemed landscaping together with the core development such as walks, decks, patios, terraces, water features, and like features not occupying more than twenty percent (20%) of the landscaped area. By way of background, the architects held a pre -application with Greg Roy and Jonathan Spence on May 19, 2021. The issue of landscaping was specifically discussed and the architects were told that the "light well" could not be counted towards the "softscape" requirement but that all of the other landscape area under the deck could be counted. The Greg and Jonathan even recommended 18" tall shrubs in the area below the deck. Further the applicant submitted plans for review by staff and the DRB on May 24 for a meeting held on June 16, 2021. The staff and the DRB were supportive of the landscape area being provided and there was no mention of noncompliance. The interpretation that areas under an upper story deck could only be counted as "hardscape" only came to light 6 months later upon influence and correspondence from the immediate neighbor, Erickson Shirley. We intend to file an appeal in the next week but we are uncertain if this is an appeal of the definition of landscaping, presumably an appeal to the PEC or an appeal of an intent statement in the design guidelines, which is appealed to the DRB. Please clarify for us. Thanks, Dominic F. Mauriello, AICP Mauriello Planning Group, LLC PO Box 4777 2205 Eagle Ranch Road Eagle, Colorado 81631 970-376-3318 cell https:/Mink.edgepiIot.comVf7cd95fe/fmJssagJrkCrVlCrfraW_A?u=http://www.mpgvail.com/ VAIL TOWN PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: 1/5/2022 ITEM/TOPIC: DRB21-0513 - Dolan Residence ATTACHM ENTS: File Name Description DRB21-0513 Packet.odf DRB21-0513 Packet x 0 O z 0 LU O If a z z O � J .` ., W $ a z w 3 aLU z LU a7 2 K O z & z �O <a p w 1 i w w! 4 0 z 4 r r j WW J W J W z F- F-4 r 0 X Z w f ssm 00'IItlA d-00?jvd'E 101 S31tl1S3 NJOH018 `3NVI . ` ` ` ` a 0 ('7 w Y- V# 1399nN 8LZV w a Q o w= J g 1340LAM NVIOCI o a o o NOI onMISNOD MOJI ION x 0 O z 0 LU O If a z z O � J .` ., W $ a z w 3 aLU z LU a7 2 K O z & z �O <a p w 1 i w w! 4 0 z 4 r r j WW J W J W z F- F-4 r 0 X Z w f ��^E a0 00'IItlA _ 0 V-00Jtld'E101S31tl1S3NJOH°JI8 "` tea (V Y - ssm V# `3NV'l 1399nN 8LZV w a Q J o g 1340LAM NVIOCI o o o- I a NOI onMISNOD MO=l ION uj Z a Gmgry�g5�p��=No�o l c* •' I ' � � w LU LULUJ 28 N e a"6¢ eo � � �aa� 30 � � ikk; (� I � •} �\�`I, _I �f 3 i �§ o a a Jo3s 0 LU 0 II w a ¢ z a ¢ J J W x 3 LU J W a� i I K W § O a oG og a O 0 LU 0 II w a ¢ z a ¢ J J W x 3 LU J W a� i I 09 K W § O a O a `� / f 09 ��^E .90 00'IItlA O V 130Jtld'E lol S31tl1S3 NJOH9I8 Y - ssm V# `3NVI 1399nN 8LZV w w = = a Q J og 1340W32i NVIOa o 0 o o a z oo = NOIlOf1211SN00 NO=l lON o LLQ® w f� ooso o £=a � mp6�5 G z Z 0 W m 0 LU yes x K d <F O a 0 v _ N a LL O 6 W a _ I I J I I d Lu �ar w 'r > p WN HUN0 Ell LL O 6 I I J I I Z o 'r 3 Z o 'r 3 �r i r� It VAIL TOWN PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: 1/5/2022 ITEM/TOPIC: DRB21-0496 - North Fifth LLC ATTACHM ENTS: File Name DRB21-0496 plans for 1-5 Part1.odf DRB21-0496 plans for 1-5 Part2.odf DRB21-0496 plans for 1-5 Part3.odf Vail Village Master Plan - Vail Village Townhouse Design Standards.odf Public Comment Letters.odf Email from Erikson Shirley 11-23-2021.odf Public Comment - Shirley 12-29-21 PDF.odf Re Review of Rowhouse #7 s Proposed Project.odf VHA Letter to Members 1-3-22.odf I Description DRB21-0496 plans for 1-5_Part1 DRB21-0496 plans for 1-5_Part2 DRB21-0496 plans for 1-5_Part3 Vail Village Master Plan - Vail Village Townhouse Design Standards Public Comment Email from Erikson Shirley, 11-23-2021 Public Comment - Shirley 12-29-21 PDF Public Comment VHA Letter DRB21-0496 Welles Family - Welles Objection DRB Submittal (Objection re Final Approval of Lot 7 s olans).odf 0(3VNO-100`-IIVA 3AIN(3 A33NO 3210) £O£ L# 3snOH MON - K > w O 30N3aIS3N aNO=lin Q z 0 wo >a Q- a>`�HH v~i Ew .a 22 LL oo E��E_ o3am� a J ��� ��� os �_ ��o�aw33=&&&&o Z o� E Q L'•� V, o0 00 ¢3333999999 000:: Z sss www ��w�x�zmmm> » >mmmmmm���m��ss U �m� ma_mEo 00 w E� �o�s p «< «<«««««««<««««ww ass oo ��s33Emmm �_ �o >' 9 oax — ao S 01 lz� wC 04 Ywa W H a V J00 �_ go wigno W I� z i� N O so0 �� >ga< 2eo W N Q d a4oa ow <LLo< o aw aLL� qq� ujLL z oaw= H - o�o �ANPaa=°o _ v q 0 O-22 A J P @� _ - --- - - uj Z n tL7 U _ r E — " � U77 0 _ _ Q m ✓Ir � H o >� wwxx_� rrr»xw w H __ HHHHH HHH 6r�r rix » »3333333 8 20E m _ 3 og rcH HHRH HHH r r » rrr r K = a a a > > 3 g 3 3 zw d 0000�o xx__-.� ����zz 0000aaa rcrcrc LU G 0 w 0000��x xxo ��SS������z`zzo 0000aaaapaarcrcrcrc rcrc J LLLJJJ z > Q v LU - _ W Q s�9y v - - � m � o � s ms m « «mmmmmmm oo oa0000000aoo Bswmw���,: ,:LLsssso a o—.3z.......zooz�o� o d o o` ¥a q 3a N(3 A33N o 3NOE) GE &3SnOHMO (� §w d o 30N3alS3N QNO] ° _ _ §k ''i �( \ \)}): § $ 0 ! _ 1. _ - }\ j !} m \ - ` - \#) §§( \G\ ) K / % )\m!)k]§\®\ ` \)�§\E. \> \\ ! }\)( d < §| ) \\\\\| § \ \ : \\ b § \\ E\ : !! !, E - §W,r LU \ - _ - _ :|! Z : WIM ! ; : _�! f - §[§ § § 5 k ! �) \\\ z 3: )) 1 -0_ & 4=§ Lu §; ); - : /v g ) ; ! - _ (: _ !§)| m 2 7 § , �_» ,; t:) (\\ )) 0 )\_� 444® 0(3VNO-100 `-IIVA 3ARI4 1133210 3210) £0£ < < z Q F M L# 3snOH MON - K w C DoLLI x Q 30N3alS3N aNO=l - oo 3 LU 3E a`A � V x J (i ■ � - Ww 3 I W W Ea3€ EEJ -E I- � W g t !s a P -> €� J _,9 ve i 6F}3 c- 4" PHww IF a sq �m — a 0 Si i Fah 6m mfr 35� 3 A £u 6 a W I" _ _ �Xta 9 as a»Qa. mm - Ww 5� W i I .9 � a tla ��„$ J Wa g a3s MH �` OCIVNO-100 `-II` A 3AIN(3 1133210 3210) £0£ z = L# 3snOH MON O Xv11 Oi= Q 30N341S3214210=l - w v y� o - ; F � W Z I ~ Z �t- 1Of 7 LL O O Z w 0 f W K — — _ D D Y O W W w Of i. O 0 w r p Of F Y O z F op F z F — O U Z � 7 Z � Y `r W sig Q cl z LU 0 co f � Z O ur{ co z z �J x W iFT L; z li r 0 Z ¢ W � - � F -- Of K Z cl D S LL _ W O W ,I W K 0 U o . W W F = -- K O z ._ z O O r F U ~ ¢ O X Z W W TM^ z U Z W W...�."r O OfF a z w 0 O Of >LL W_ � � W Qm UU 3 F Z Z F Y W w OXO �O OCIVNO-100 `-IIVA a 3AIN(3 1133210 3210) £0£ 0 z z F W p C L# 3snOH M021 J } o a SOW cn0�= r 30N341S321 4210 - =�a�(D W Z a a �F0 < v 0 w OZ a> U r O O 0 0 0 r 0 ryyl. co 0000 r, Y. Y' F Z _ D F O0C) LLO I o _ Of O z W' 0 r• z F zY (n W w Z w �I \ k 0:i w oof U) LL Oz0 — r 0 0 � zz z F Y D �0 LL 0 _ Of O Q p O n mow/,Z - - ! _ z 0 F �. F jz LU \ I W LL O QO 0 0 OOf 0 Z r Q F - r z D Y F LL W Z 0w D t 0 0 r LL in 0' �� O � o 0 = Z • (D(DZ Z O f Z Z Z I F Y WO z i W� r � AIL X W ro F Z D 7 = LL Z OJ �+ 0 Q j O � 0 w Z D 3t C) r d, o z Of D / Y 1 (n O ',IJd LUw L - ` O 0 zW �- r z 0 ~z O F X'' - - D w w z w >z LL 0 a0 w 0 _ Of F 0 O z 0 z F X W o; 'N mW'm�az Q'2 D�m�n Lu GIQ Da s I A �l o o .►- 0 91 w AtJII11 •:,. ,V - EM0(3VNO-100 `-IIVA 3N21(3 1133210 3210) £0£ < L# 3snOH MON - 30N3aIS3N aNO=l - o0 8 8" �w o� swm as -- 11 IY _i .z m C K Q O QW N LL Q 2 v N oq� z ju oda os= D.N-- tT LLI 0(3VNO-100'-IIVA 3AI214 1133210 3210) COC L# 3snOH MON 30N3alS3N aNO=l �o r r o _a T f7 f -T7 to o IL w W 06 �o r r o _a T f7 f -T7 to 0(3VNO-100'-IIVA 3AIN(3 A33O 3NOE) COC L# 3snOH MON 30N3alS3N aNO=l �\\\\ � 0 z LU Lj (.) 0 _j i -n W< > � 0 z 0(3VNO-100 `-IIVA 3N21(3 1133210 3210) £0£ < L# 3snOH MON - 30N3aIS3N aNO=l - o0 z ■ <I a <I� a Gam,,.. Q �0 9 06 wm_ IN I� en� BSI w K o r a 0 N LL 0 a U Q z ■ <I a <I� a Gam,,.. Q �0 9 06 wm_ IN I� en� BSI w OCIVNO-100 `-IIVA 3AIN(3 1133210 3210) £0£ L# 3snOH MONo - 30N3aIS3N aNO=l - s _m l om o� m o v z Ocn Ti aw O O�QQ Q W 0 0(3VNO-100 `-IIVA 3N214 1133210 3210) £0£ L# 3snOH MONo - 30N3aIS3N aNO=l - z 00 z 00 H x A~ O z Z 10 mw< w —e m J i I sl — � i a s HH dk mz _ I I i I .auo s o� -❑ } r a I wl I I M � i � � � � E s<<< _ � E \ g �� 4' � m❑ s � I o❑ z @ ILe o �� _ 7w, I m a - gl W�a z 0 � II II I -- - - - - - - - - - -------------------- I I a� ill Ip I II viii i I I � v I _ I (D- —ry —�\ L ------- --- --- F== I I I L'JIiLA n - o z a _ a ISI � I I I I �Jd'fn O K �>O0n M 0WJ LL IL Q ��v x A~ O z Z 10 mw< w —e m J i I sl — � i a s HH dk mz _ I I i I .auo s o� -❑ } r a I wl I I M � i � � � � E s<<< _ � E \ g �� 4' � m❑ s � I o❑ z @ ILe o �� _ 7w, I m a - gl W�a z 0 � II II I -- - - - - - - - - - -------------------- I I a� ill Ip I II viii i I I � v I _ I (D- —ry —�\ L ------- --- --- F== I I I L'JIiLA n - o z a _ a ISI � I I I I EM0(3VNO-100 `-IIVA 3N21(3 1133210 3210) £O£ < L# 3snOH MON 30N3aIS3N aN0=1 - o00 a co 3 N N mma � I I" 0 0 I � a _ — — I I 1 >- w/ a o ° x <o m x I I� N,eF 90 � sa d E , I z.E EI r SI O 3 ill l 0 J 4o¢o w I of G, w H 3 I o w I I Z c ml o 1- m� e I os I o�e a a. EG � � a I m I p z C JC7 O U Qb Frr � ` U) 0 �wz K >0� o zw0 J W d Q � I I" 0 0 I � a _ — — I I 1 >- w/ a o ° x <o m x I I� N,eF 90 � sa d E , I z.E EI r SI O 3 ill l 0 J 4o¢o w I of G, w H 3 I o w I I Z c ml o 1- m� e I os I o�e a a. EG � � a I m I p z C JC7 O U Qb Frr � ` 00 rE r snr � I >✓.s s .r�r rE r .v... s. I .ers. n ����JII '))Li'rF� � I III C L j lrl IV�L,�I I I-: 1 P _ � ill I I P a LL-- i l n j Ilri •s a� zI-11� � III I II f I lilt I 1F, I � I II f J u1 'J-- \ \ psi 71 r - jY 11 c I if j f J I- �I— I i � • 0(3VNO-100 `-IIVA M z> K mw >OZW OJ Q JLLIL 3N21(3 1133210 3210) £O£ - - - 1\_IYI. 16 Icy L# 3snOH MON = 4.1 I�Q' ISI 30N3aIS3N aNO=l U � o00 <>�oo OD ��oo _ f\� I �-1 Ej , a� m IIS ,g I ' I d w❑ t I— w E, 0 d E. N _ _ x A~ O z M z> K mw >OZW OJ Q JLLIL x A~ O z 00 H z ---- ----_ -- - ,r , - - I F -- II I II, i@ i i (-D- - - - - - - - ---- --- -- - - —- m mw i Lo$��p s� 1\_IYI. 16 Icy I 4.1 I�Q' ISI ' U 00 H z ---- ----_ -- - ,r , - - I F -- II I II, i@ i i (-D- - - - - - - - ---- --- -- - - —- • 0(3VNO-100 `-IIVA ry WQLLZ O aWO� Q > > W a 3N214 1133210 3210) £O£ < L# 3snOH MON = 30N3alS3N aNO=l - o00 z CC) <g§ a9 iog J i oo z "s' q o - � Ku (�, g❑ es.. i !u I I -_ I, m I I _ I I O — a� -�- o m � LL HO z D cr s 2 A 0 Z ry WQLLZ O aWO� Q > > W a oa— J s 2 A 0 Z 04d210-100 `-IIbA z 3N21(3 1133210 3210) £0£ _ _ = O � EML# 3snOH M0N = K > 30N3alS3N aNO=l - oo Q I..- - w 00 0 o o 1 - T J� IF ol I T }_I O 0 - G m� u (O O J Q o4 �1 0 - - O m -III I T N 0(3VNO-100 `-IIVA 3N21(3 1133210 3210) £O£ < L# 3snOH MON - 30N3aIS3N aNO=l Am Lo Www O ry 00 Q o a M o azo ull o <�oo 60 0(3VNO-100 `-IIVA 3N214 1133210 3210) £0£ CD L# 3snOH M0N - K j Iu �z� Q 30N3alS3N aNO=l m 7 L h ti I Ali 'I i��l II In I i EM0(3VNO-100'-IIVA 3AI214 1133210 3210) COC L# 3snOH MON 30N3alS3N aNO=l I cl Eff= LM i'lt iN J t Eff= LM i'lt oCIVNo o ` ¥a 4 9E 3AIN(3 A33 o o GE L# 3SnOH «o _ § 2 $ o 30N3alS3N QNO] ° __ _ ®� © `2�( \\ \}}): � : .. ; § ) > \ \ . = \ Ir } $■ - § ) . \ ;cl j ` Of0 \ § \ ; \) 2� /}/ « ^\ , ( ) \ » . . ) -- \ - - 0 \\\ \ \ \ \» \ ?: ».(> \ a Of o 0 ( \ \ . \ 2 ` 2 \ [ \ » ! ,3\ \ � ® oCIVNo o ` ¥a 4 9E _ 3AINQA33No3No GE m§\� oz t3SnoH«o - _ W20W o 30N3alS3N QNO] ^\t/ �U-W « \ zcl ° \ \ \ ` )cl W ) e ; )( b ) ) ) ) ) ; 20::) ) ; 2 } \ cl ) 5 ; ; &0 z( / gb! ; 5 )r:§ ( $ ,\}; . )Of[\ ( w ) ~ ` / ) % o ) j ( � cl ( �� \ o g \. ) ; _ ; = o 0 1 - ) ) ( : ~ OfR o ) \ ) \\§(\3/ ( &°®b)[/ ( )/)±oz/ ) / ( :!§e±2! \/&K&zz \2 ) » ( �)[()\\ ( � � . Z' j\2{ � \\\\ Lu -al oCIVNo o ` ¥a 3AINQA33No3No GE L# 3SnOH «o 30N3alS3N QNO] ;\ o: �OfI Lu_( - \)}\:5;�0 < §22L \0 IL ! LL QC)) \ _ mEE � - \)}\:5;�0 §22L LL OCIVNO-100`11VA 3AIN(3 1133210 3210) £0£ m F � L# 3snOH MO21 u- w oLL O O o 30N341S321 4210 - o ' LL Q v 0 m o 'I 0 P LL w_ 0 f W Q � 1 W 2i I W_ J Z ^ wLL 0I'I �O w Zr o O F Wo --1 I'. aF0 w �Z �!1.,',I O Z K LL F D O Q�OO� w0 �' F wx0-Of (95 0- wz wa w:Ew3: zz3: IQ 0 �d Of r 0 O x a 0 z X W 0 W 000 ° w < zIQ LU y.*j LL, O I 0(3VNO-100 `-IIVA 3N21(3 1133210 3210) £0£ L# 3snOH MON - 30N3aIS3N aNO=l - o0 --- —a--J—qq----- ---� 111111 �Jo OIC w _ goo ole -- - - - - -- -� - ----- o= e �I I� Ism � 1111111 —��o o �Iluu uuui 1 0 o mm vI Iii hill o9l IF - - ------ _---T--- o x Y rlI ITIo -- - t pl I Ell 11I� �IIIllI II � M o o z�rm —III �m q - Isa -s�wN, is z�3ddn aoiaai:a �iv+isr,:a I I �- o _� --------------- ------ _. — g�— � 7VM 2JO 8131;:3 �3A A211N3 `JN US V3 4-- I Ito F1 T r m w� I 0 0 � tom c — �� o33a�d, 0 0,8z «a - - - - - - - - i I � o alloz>ave�SaNl ;Aia 0do iOO oN r ' j I I II I j I I i -+- I JI I - - __- __- -- of-_ -__-L =1 Ltl-IIo�� ooo o dam zl o� �I - - - Q in --- —a--J—qq----- ---� 111111 �Jo OIC w _ goo ole -- - - - - -- -� - ----- o= e �I I� Ism � 1111111 —��o o �Iluu uuui 1 0 o mm vI Iii hill o9l IF - - ------ _---T--- o x Y rlI ITIo -- - t pl I Ell 11I� �IIIllI II � M o o z�rm —III �m q - Isa -s�wN, is z�3ddn aoiaai:a �iv+isr,:a I I �- o _� --------------- ------ _. — g�— � 7VM 2JO 8131;:3 �3A A211N3 `JN US V3 4-- I Ito F1 T r m w� I 0 0 � tom c — �� o33a�d, 0 0,8z «a - - - - - - - - i I � o alloz>ave�SaNl ;Aia 0do iOO oN r ' j I I II I j I I i -+- I JI I - - __- __- -- of-_ -__-L =1 Ltl-IIo�� ooo o dam zl o� �I - - 0(3VNO-100 `-IIVA 3N21(3 1133210 3210) £O£ L# 3snOH MON - 30N3aIS3N aNO=l ao o w� z IN Q � a Asa — — - wo - wi ao o w� Q � a Asa — — - wo - - - - - - - I I i —II F - - - - - - � o � o 1 1- w m oa = w i rc - �- - I I - - - -F H -- - - X1,11 I I i rc _ 1,1 IIIIIIIIIT - 1 11 1 I ' i1 o OCIVNO-100 `-II` A M 3AIN(3 1133210 3210) £0£ z z0 O zo L# 3snOH MON - F _ J Lo o 30N3alS3N aNO=l - v m Q w w wol� d�� Q� _I I I Ilii- llllllill�lli - - — — — — r1- o loo-- - --I� T Hil —it SII o. I I— i- a =1 o, 10 F1 FU F - _ 0_ &1.00 �– �'"w Li o- - - - - - - - - - - 'h- -� 0' — — a° �- -o a — _ — 0 o � � o m iq 0(3VNO-100 `-IIVA 3N21(3 1133210 3210) £O£ < L# 3snOH MON - 30N3aIS3N aNO=l o- 1 w� w _'\ 0000 Q in o w - �- o. LLw _ w.� �� 00 o a ooI - J J IIS o�J�woao w« O00 1. zm z oo- 1,8 8o �r�w ��o -o' E8 J I I f I o- 1 - Q in 0(3VNO-100 `-IIVA 3N21(3 1133210 3210) £O£ < L# 3snOH MON - 30N3aIS3N aNO=l o a=oF�_ oo o — — 00 -gym ¢ od - o wall �Im s w"o.- -o o— O�O m t,o 11 Doo= 00 _ — = I' I I I Im I I I II I I I I - I I III I I oul o Im� m o0o 1�o --o lo .� I I I R — I 1I I I I I 1 I I I I I I 1 o l I I I I I oI I of of of �I - dl al JIou 1 lu ofo 1 of ofI I 0 ol lI 1 I I LLJ of I I o 1 r <o I o�m� 3d<. I J w o00 1 'loll ooroo 1 ILL zo l l W o¢ 1 oo2Q _za IT zuor JJ o «wa j w <�LL<u m - I I I I I I w -1 II I RI I I m o I I - Ow�u m V I I I IQ I I 6 m o I o I o mo i 0 — — III— =o �3: - - � - I IIII I' I z �� me —— — _ ——=I—_ . o — I — — — o J — I I—I II oo - I I Im w,- .< LLw o Q lo Im mJwmm mo1- =31 m 000i sumo � 000w k _� W) w Q o a=oF�_ oo o — — 00 -gym ¢ od - o wall �Im s w"o.- -o o— O�O m t,o 11 Doo= 00 _ — = I' I I I Im I I I II I I I I - I I III I I oul o Im� m o0o 1�o --o lo .� I I I R — I 1I I I I I 1 I I I I I I 1 o l I I I I I oI I of of of �I - dl al JIou 1 lu ofo 1 of ofI I 0 ol lI 1 I I LLJ of I I o 1 r <o I o�m� 3d<. I J w o00 1 'loll ooroo 1 ILL zo l l W o¢ 1 oo2Q _za IT zuor JJ o «wa j w <�LL<u m - I I I I I I w -1 II I RI I I m o I I - Ow�u m V I I I IQ I I 6 m o I o I o mo i 0 — — III— =o �3: - - � - I IIII I' I z �� me —— — _ ——=I—_ . o — I — — — o J — I I—I II oo - I I Im w,- .< LLw o Q lo Im mJwmm mo1- =31 m 000i sumo � 000w 0(3VNO-100 `-IIVA 3N21(3 1133210 3210) £0£ L# 3snOH MON - 30N3aIS3N aNO=l - o0 z CD - Q in OCIVNO-100 `-IIVA 3AIN(3 1133210 3210) £0£ oz L# 3snOH MONo - 30N3aIS3N aNO=l - Z CD �W Q OCIVNO-100 `-II` A 3AIN(3 1133210 3210) £0£ L# 3snOH MON = 30N3alS3N aNO=l - �a 0 66 _ 66 _ a6 oN =a o g s oa�� I 1-1 1 -III,' I I -III IIII I� I L I I ww 1 NN I °1-F I I I II-1I=I I` 1 VII —IEl I I —11 '' � A I'��f IIIiIIII� II�III 1= �7J ---------------- -------------------- 0 ----------.a s c a Lo � w Q gym- in �a 0 66 _ 66 _ a6 oN =a o g s oa�� I 1-1 1 -III,' I I -III IIII I� I L I I ww 1 NN I °1-F I I I II-1I=I I` 1 VII —IEl I I —11 '' � A I'��f IIIiIIII� II�III 1= �7J ---------------- -------------------- 0 ----------.a s 9a .a oa - oa w OCIVNO-100 `-II` A 3AIN(3 1133210 3210) £0£ L# 3snOH MONo = 30N3alS3N aNO=l - - pg�oLNMM LL� 1- I` I a SII z � IL J 0 LL O F C6 a p �( - pg�oLNMM LL� 1- I` I a SII z � IL a c ��mg aa=N LL m woo8 �LLw� � opo ow H oo�o o g o – c ---------------- OR 1 7 10 a NZ� wz apH 9 o�p w >� z� a z z -- .— - a �— —..— 1 � i 10 C z w WWm s _ J OCIVNO-100 `-II` A 3AIN(3 1133210 3210) £0£ L# 3snOH MONo = 30N3alS3N aNO=l - J 0 LL O F Cfl a p �( waoa LL ego ¢opa , : -= EIEOCIVNO-100`-IIVA 3AIN(3 1133210 3210) £O£ L# 3snOH MON = a 30N3alS3N aNO=l Viggo ogo o§ wg �x gnaw a�o�4 a a � ggo awe �� g 1- A� ogo ow o owg om wg asa �g yg= wgr wpm 11. o gods :oma �o s 0 0(3VNO-100 `-IIVA 3N21(3 1133210 3210) £0£ < L# 3snOH MON - 30N3aIS3N aNO=l - o0 2 A 0 Z Q r s w a C K W W U O Opw� v J J Q a 2 A 0 Z Q s s a 77 4 e o®aQ �E �e� � Im — — — ' —I 3 03 — 03 --a- ._ — — `® a- c s 3 g O oar o i Ic - — o-- - - - - - -- - Q 4 �E �e� --a- '0 `® Wye �I ag o0 a M O O O O O 0(3VNO-100 `-IIVA 3N21(3 1133210 3210) £O£ < L# 3snOH MON - 30N3aIS3N aNO=l Q II 0 aqs .gyae II �I,�I I � I 0 -- II J aaWU K� I O aILW� r Q II 0 aqs .gyae II �I,�I I � I 0 -- II M I °A r .vie s X300 o a m 3 ❑ VR, i��l sez ez .eisez . O — m <F " � a I P � m < m - s E F -s aid t U U U U U U U OCIVNO-100 `-IPdn 3AIN(3 1133210 3210) £0£ L# 3snOH MON o 30N3alS3U aNO=l x 0 O z z 0 zWcn J o FOz N 00 Q LL IL xm w_ W x 0 O z z OCIVNO-100 `11` A 3AIN(3 1133210 3210) £0£ L# 3snOH MON o 30N3alS3U aNO=l - x 0 O z ZEE) O ZWc J o w I J FOz N 00 Q mXaa -I' w W x 0 O z ZEE) w I J 4L �D -I' n 0 I k ®o P y oQIVIP2x� Z� snunaom {( o,« »e _same a=o,N\0, ]DN]O 3]�J OHO] })}!) / Z ® ° ; �} {( } })}!) / Z ® ° � \ \Z \/� \ /} &_� ~ � \ \> ( „ \ < wwg ; }[;A ^ })}!) / Z ® ° � \ \Z \/� \ /} � \ \> ( „ \ < \ \} }7 }(} }} ^ H - -� / Z ® ° � \ \Z \/� \ /} � - \ )) (} Too H - -� I \ h ° � \ \ ( of Q; JQK 1 Nil "g Nil (} \}{\ „i, ({}( § } xzE ore, sw�E eEa .oa �„ +sa a OJ IIVn 3nla(l )33aD 3a09 sos L# isnOH N\ 3DN341SI2l42i0J ➢ ➢ _ ° a z g e 0 0 N a m � e 0 - m 0 w 0 - - - oS � £ a � o6oLLm � p N G a0 o£oo,o t Hn— 0 i9� o Q mJ °�w so Q. eg l- sm°I oQ° OO z a °o�gm�� mw o N M o v4 o w° LL o� Jo° o� <— m g Nw oma W a m w-o., mos°E 'olp¢ go sf °mop 3� Lu pq o mLLopm=p°LLed g o I£ s° o�`sg°vz O`o os�om ¢b IT, 'no— vz �� �¢o a eJ m=<m�°a 2 �w g g 5 ° ° v ° sr e a Q °°rm�° am Q Q° ° nmW Qo ° F Q�a2- �3�8 ° e 0 - m 0 w 0 - - - J 0 — � p N G a0 0 i9� OO OO 60 16 s N¢ so s_ Sups NNE e= =a< s p ose aso m, 4 , o 4- p_ exs roo �E J ISOOD � ----- �� aO ctc0 1 -thy 11-1 GQ l I e� O O a a- 6 �33a� 3ap� Vail Village Master Plan properties. The purpose of these design considerations is to preserve the unique character of the existing townhouse properties in Vail Village. Redevelopment should be consistent with the existing pedestrian -oriented, urban character of Vail Village. All demo/rebuild and new construction projects in the Vail Village Townhouse District shall comply with these guidelines. It is understood that renovations to existing buildings may be unable to fully comply with some of these design considerations. Redevelopment to existing buildings will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, with determination of compliance based upon whether the renovation to an existing building meets the general intent of these design considerations. A. Zoning: The existing townhouse properties in the East Gore Creek Sub -Area including the Vail Townhouse Condominiums, Vail Row Houses, Vail Trails Chalet, Vail Trails East, and Texas Townhomes should be rezoned from the High Density Multiple - Family (HDMF) District to the Vail Village Townhouse (VVT) District. Yid rawer "" condo"UNUMs V" R" . . Hov.. B. Development Pattern: Townhouse properties in the East Gore Creek Sub -Area should exhibit the appearance and characteristics of a residential row style development. Buildings should face the street and appear to be a series of proportionally sized, individual dwelling units occupying the space from the ground to the roof that are attached inline by shared side walls. Buildings should exhibit these characteristics regardless of ownership patterns or the horizontal and vertical subdivision of properties, and should create a perceived dwelling unit occupying the space within a building from the ground to the roof. C. Architectural Theme: The existing architectural and aesthetic character of the townhouse properties in Vail Village shall be preserved. 1. Units: The architectural theme of each dwelling unit or perceived dwelling unit (occupying the space within a building from the ground to the roof) shall be expressed on all sides of that unit to create an architecturally integrated unit. 2. Buildings: Townhouse buildings shall express an architectural theme of 43 Vail Village Master Plan either uniformity or individuality. To portray architectural and aesthetic integrity, a combination of both themes within a single building is discouraged. a. Uniformity: Townhouse buildings may express a singular, unified architectural theme in which every perceived dwelling unit (occupying the space from ground to the roof) in a building is composed of substantially the same exterior design, materials, textures, and colors. b. Individuality: Townhouse buildings may express an individualistic architectural theme in which each perceived dwelling unit (occupying the space from ground to the roof) in a building varies in exterior design, materials, textures, and colors; so that abutting units do not have the same architectural treatment. This expression of individuality among units must be balanced with the character of the adjacent units and the building as a whole. D. Building Form and Massing: Buildings shall step back from the front property line to create the appearance of a two-story facade along the street. For the purposes of these design considerations, a story or floor is considered the space between the surface of any floor and the next floor or ceiling above, not exceeding 11 feet in height. The front facade of the first floor or street level and the second floor shall be located within 20 to 28 feet of the front property line. The front facade of the third floor and any floors above shall step back 6 to 10 feet from the fapade of the second floor below. E. Street Edge: Front facade shall be generally parallel to the street and form a strong, but irregular edge to the street. Front facades shall generally align with adjacent units and buildings to create a sense of street enclosure and continuity, but shall have enough offset between units and buildings to create visual interest. F. Facade: To reduce the appearance of building height and mass, and to create a residential scale and character, all facades shall incorporate vertical and horizontal articulation to reduce the appearance of building height and mass and to foster the appearance of a residential neighborhood. Facades should incorporate doors, decks, porches, balconies, fenestration, recesses, bay windows, ornamentation, and other traditional residential architectural elements. No facade shall appear to be a large unbroken plane. To preserve the existing pedestrian scale and residential character of the neighborhood, dwelling unit entries are encouraged on the front of the building; however, garage entries are strongly discouraged on the front facade. G. Cantilevers: On the front facade, floor area cantilevered more than three feet beyond the level below is strongly discouraged. Cantilevered floor areas shall not be stacked or cantilevered atop one another. H. Roof Pitch: The primary roof form should be sloping with pitches from 3:12 to 4:12. Secondary roofs should be sloping with pitches from 6:12 to 9:12. Flat roofs may have limited use as secondary roofs for decks and mechanical equipment areas. Mansard roofs create the perception of additional bulk and mass and are inconsistent with the architectural character of the existing townhouse properties and the existing neighborhood. Therefore, mansard roofs are discouraged. 44 Vail Village Master Plan I. Roof Ridge: The primary roof ridges shall be parallel with the front fagade of the building and should be oriented to not shed snow or rain onto adjacent properties. To create visual interest and to reduce the perception of building bulk and mass, roofs shall not create the appearance of continuous ridges between units or buildings. Roof ridges should be articulated by stepping in elevation and varying from front to rear. Dormers and other secondary roof forms may also be used minimize the perception of a continuous ridge. J. Fences and Site Walls: Privacy fences and walls along the street are discouraged, except to screen trash areas, utility equipment, and other similar items. K. Landscaping: Trees, shrubs, and other plant materials shall be located in the front portion of the site to create privacy and to soften the visual transition from roadways and parking areas to the building fagades. L. Deck Rails: Deck rails shall be designed to minimize the perception of additional building bulk and mass. Deck rails should incorporate transparency, material changes, and stepping in alignment from other building elements. Solid railings that appear to extend the exterior wall material from below are discouraged. M. Parking: Off-street parking should be located on at -grade surface driveways or in below grade shared parking structures. Off-street parking should not be accommodated with individual or shared garages, carports, or parking structures on the first floor or street level. 45 VAIL TOWN PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL MEETING AGENDA SUBMITTAL MEETING DATE: 12/1/2021- 2:OOPM ITEM/TOPIC: DRB21-0496 - North Fifth LLC Objection Submitted by: The Welles Family, Lot 6 (Unit 6B owner), Vail Village First Filing Property Owner: The Welles Vail, LLC North Fifth LLC is the owner of Lot 7, immediately adjacent to Welles (on Lot 6), and shares a party wall with the Welles. The Welles family respectfully submits objection to the Town of Vail Design Review Board regarding final approval of North Fifth LLC's reconstruction and proposed "Final Plans" until approved by the Welles as an adjacent property owner sharing a party wall with Lot 7, and under a 1964 party wall agreement that restricts any increase in height on Lot 7 unless and until approved by Lot 6 property owners. The Party Wall Agreement was amended as to Lot 7 owner and Welles in 2004 when Lot 7 was last reconstructed to allow for a height increase of the residence on Lot 7 ("2004 Agreement"). The 2004 Agreement requires any further height increase be approved by Welles. A copy of the 2004 Agreement is attached as Exhibit B. A requirement of any height increase for Lot 7 must be reciprocal to Lot 6, subject to Town of Vail approval, as was agreed to in 2004 between Lot 7 and Welles. Welles just received a copy of Lot 7's proposed Final Plans midday November 30, 2021 (yesterday) and has not had a chance to review and consider changes affecting the party wall and modifications Lot 7 proposes to make to improvements on Lot 6 as part of Lot 7's reconstruction. Welles require additional time to consider and approve the proposed final plans with its architects and structural engineers, so to address concerns raised as to Lot 7's project, including as to the integrity of the party wall both during demolition and as a result of any change in loads. Welles respectfully request that the Design Review Board either: (i) table final review of Lot 7's proposed Final Plans" until Welles has an opportunity to review and provide comments and required changes to Lot 7's proposed Final Plans, or (ii) condition Design Review Board approval on the following: 1. That any height increase is approval by Welles under an appropriate joint/adjacent property owner consent; 2. That all changes in loads or otherwise to the party wall be approved by Welles under an appropriate joint/adjacent property owner consent; and 3. That all work or modification to be performed on Lot 6 be approved by Welles as a Lot 6 owner (Unit 613) under an appropriate joint/adjacent property owner consent. Respectfully Submitted, The Welles Family Property Owner, The Welles-Family LLC From: Vail, CO To: Grea Roy Subject: DRB Meeting 12/1 - DRB21-0496 Date: Tuesday, November 30, 2021 11:01:42 AM Message submitted from the <Vail, CO> website. Site Visitor Name: Richard K Parker, MD Site Visitor Email: rparkermd@msn.com I am writing this note as an adjacent homeowner at 303 East Gore Creek Drive 2D. I support the problems as noted in Mr Erickson Shirley's note to the DRB 100% therefore will not repeat them. I am in complete favor of the ability of 97 to rebuild their Townhouse, and we of the Vail Townhouse Association (buildings 2 thru 6) are working through the needed legal impediments of the Common Wall agreement and have nearly completed this. However we are uncomfortable with the upper level deck size and encroachment on the required landscape and tree scape space extending out to the parking spaces. This `Mountain Modern Deck' may work in a residential areas with space between homes as on Mill Creek Circle, however in a close urban space as in the core village with zero space lot lines it encroaches on the neighbors quality of life and enjoyment of their homes. They have reduced the size and encroachment a bit from their initial design however it is still significantly larger and more expansive than all others in this townhouse complex. As designed the owners always plan to be respectful of neighbors, but what happens when their children, grandchildren, friends or even eventually VRBO users are there, it directly effects everyone in tight spaces. We have had that problem even within our Association with much smaller decks and have even had to consider restrictions on our own fellow owners. If they wish to open the front of the building with sliding glass doors onto a smaller deck, it would seem appropriate to welcome the outside in, but to spread the inside living and celebration to the outside on this oversized deck for the neighborhood is quite concerning and I am afraid after built it becomes objectionable. It seems to be contrary to past and current design guidelines and precedence. Thank you for your consideration. Richard K. Parker, MD 303 East Gore Creek Drive 2D LL ............ , PARTY"WALL AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, Made and entered into: this 20th day.of` January, 1964VAIL TOWNHOUSES, LTD._: 19W by and hetweer/ a Colorado corporation (hereinafter collectively, referrecl'to.as "First Parties"), and (hereinafter referred to:as "Second Party"). W I T. N E, 5 S E T`H g WHEREAS, First'Parties•are the fee: title owners of the following described real estate,: situate in the, County of Eagle' State of Colorado,. to-wit; Lot: 6,- Resubdivision of Block 5, and,a part of': Gore Creek Drive, vaiI Village,_ First Filing, and: WHEREAS, Second Party is the fee title owner of the fol-, lowing described real estate,.:situate in the county of Eagle, State i of Colorado, to-wit: Lot 7, Resubdivision of Block 5, and a part of {i Gore Creek Drive, Vail..Village,;.First-Filing; , r, 1 and; c WHEREAS,; Both of said parcels of.real:estate are adjoin- , ing and'contiguoual and WHEREAS, The parties hereto have erected ontheparcels owned by y Parties hereto-respectively aunit of raw houses canes. netted by division walls between said dwellings;: and WHEREAS, The parties hereto: desire, to. create in favor,of each other an easement"coveringraald party walls and placed equally divided.on the lot lines separating the.lots upon which the separj- ate dwellings are erected.' NOW, THEREFORE, The parties hereto, in order: to protect ' cs xy each other'and.their respective successors, personal representatives JA and assigns of any of the aforedescribed'real property, the follow-+ ; ing easements:on,building structures and property._walls located on w said.premises are hereby created,, to•wita l., The said dividing walls shall be party -walls between. the adjoining residences erected'on-said-premises. ` 2. The cost of.maintaining,said party --walls shallbe. borne by, the owners=on either side of said party walls. 3.. Tn,the event..of damage or destruction of said walls' from any cause other than the negligence of^either party hsreto•or ` the then owner,: the then owners shall, at their joint:.expense, re- pair or rebuild`, said walls, and'each party hereto,: his successors, personal representatives and assigns, shall have the right•to the K. full use -of, said walls -so repaired or rebuilt.; if .either; party's negligence shall,cause damage to or destruction to .said walls, such: negligent -party -shall bear the entire cost of -repair or reconstruc-, tion. If either party shall -neglect or refuse, to pay his share or +' all of such costs.in case of negligence, the other party may have such walls repaired or restored, and shall beentitled to have a mechanic -'a lien- on the, premises. of 'the; party so failing to; pay for the amount- of aUch duCrtirl Ll„y... Ernr Ly'. ohn— r, C Lho z e:,Jnn l r „v. placement coat: 4. No dwelling located on any of`the.aforedeacribed real Y , estate shall at,any time extend beyond their existing height as of, ? a„ w "the date hereof; -in the event of a destruction of said multiple dwelling unit or any portion,thereof,-the dwelling so'destroyeA, 'shall, be restored,at-the::expense of the party"!d'cwning same. All such rebuilding shall. be in -conformity with.tha arahtectural plan u and finish which=existed prior to such damagoor destruction`. 5. Neither party shall alter, or change said'party walls; d in any, manner, interior decoration excepted,, and said -party walla w xL shall always°remain in the same location as when erected,. and each , _ 2 MMLt Party to said common or division walls shall have aer a . tRa� 0,04 ment in that part of the above described real R 8 sfi� other party hereto on which said party walls art �Raad fpr p�Y wail purposes. „t r f. The easements hereby F created area 4r R� aheii ## $ atX "x U41 And construed As Covenants running with ani Acid 1lAi�}} every person accepting a deed to any of the 4 QrpdpRc£ipsd shall be deemed to. Accept acid deed wit}},tha undarptandln� tt,q *x and every otherl urchaser is also bound . " ' � #�y the'' � V t harain, and each and over s.; a y purchassr� by ac daA fR « �}(► Portion of the above described real estate, ahll thsreby .F And ACJr$9 to be bound by t}1e covenants heroin GoAta ,i{At} R �h�N } ll r extent as though he had signed thia'inatrument, rr . IN WITNESS WHEREOF, The undersigned bAy #F Agreement the day and year first above written, - : VAIs, HpUSE h \ktl... .o 1 S= s\ +aha Alvin L. Cohan, $es�l�t3t w rT ! EST tatI ATT. 4 ✓ a l N. Dav r # 1 � .. MM•/ d7 5 m � f STATE OF gOWRADo } } as. CITY AND COUNTY OF;DENVER } , The foregoing Agreement was acknaw}adcgc� #8fprse assadent = ; 22nd day of Januar 1964 , .b A lvi�i Y ., x i,...c�la�n end 1 Saul N. Davidson, as Secretary of Vail Townhouaggry}+td s mr WITNESS My hand and official seal.. 3 y ' 4tM tery P,Lb]rftl =i.. xYtg Agrsemeist Use acic 6, iadged 'before me this � �4iend end ofliciel sell c t � }i R�. �gf•;dx». ,w t �t �' .r 3t t�'`iidl 1L � ] qy f Y}Y g`i+s x ti i" � 7,29 7812590372 WELLESIGERTZ PAGE 01 2004 1-781-250.0372 HUGHES RESIDENCE VAJL ROW HOUSE #7 303 GORE CREEK MM PROJECT * 0305 FUTURE MODIFICATION TQ FINAL_ 011B, AGREED CHANGES rev Assodates, LLC eghase to make the following danges to modify the 3-23-44 dravvings submits ,of Vail Design Review Hoard forfinel review. The DRB appro4 of the submttted pians is needed allow for the wrent wristnahn sehedule to be met We would request steal there be no o*abn 23-04 drawirtgs and dedgn so MR we can receive DRS approval, (snowing that we are wmmated to Of tete three operable, high, windows at the north wal of thc lght well, the two westerly shall be Pored and the one easterly shat€ remain operable. The parapet wall and shed roof eiemertadjacent to the unt 69 window ghsl be eliminated. A new parapet wi l I shat be added at pee top of the angled north wall between fie deck rail at gill OM the pantry east veal 1. This parapet top shall be 12' above the elevation of t he kitchen wlrtdow silk. Vent at the ktcdten hood dull incorporate a dosed sada an the portion of the copper cap that faces unk 68 windows, The verrt shall be constructed u low as functionally feaaibk and ascetimlly pteaslrg. No modfiukon to the submitted olans is regtared for this item. We commit to this design. The walls along the eh*t ural 6 party wait shat be constructed using, sand resistea methods. No modf4Won to submitted plans k tied for iji S mern, We ooff hit to this de*. The party wail agreemerrt shad be MW led to nd de; I) a prtvxy wall prVff rep" the northeast was, remntion of angled north wall, 2) a proviso dutfirture chances to the north elevation steal receive written apprmwl of wit 6_ Theputt' wall a9mment revisions will provide a provisiandgt ItAdp StreetAasodaw. LLCwld atree to not oppose and wil thenafpm rtpprVYa L%Ure renm%bw plans proposed by the owners Of Vey flow House #6 (provided that the tubae rer lOvaGoh plans are approved by the Town of Veli) and will agree to not object to prior improvements already made to Veli Raw Wouse #6 EMMIT A 200630740 4 OF 5 "03/17 03(1T/ 200630740 5 OF 5 tELLES/GERTZ PAGE 02 ubmktad for appry W to the Town of Vail throur the appM006 here be non -approval from t w Town of Vail DR8 on the above s shall be reopened vn the non-appromd tem (s). We request that you ,u Ayres wkh the above commem, modiSnNons, and future revis;ons to virginh Weiks vwjmdAd - From: erickson shirley <ericksonshirlev@me.com> Date: November 23, 2021 at 8:06:46 AM PST To: GRov@vailgov.com Cc: Millie Aldrich <millie@puredesign-studio.com> Subject: Copy for DRB Hello Greg, I found a typo or two and corrected them in this copy. Please pass this copy on to the DRB. Thank You. Hello Vail Planning Department, Rowhouse #7"s proposed deck ignores both prior Town Planning precedent and the clearly stated goals of the VV Master Plan, Resolution No. 7 and the VVT District. VAIL VILLAGE MASTER PLAN, V. GOALS, OBJECTIVES, POLICIES AND ACTION STEPS. GOAL #1 "ENCOURAGE HIGH QUALITY, REDEVELOPMENT WHILE PRESERVING UNIQUE ARCHITECTURAL SCALE OF THE VILLAGE IN ORDER TO SUSTAIN ITS SENSE OF COMMUNITY AND IDENTITY" GOAL #3 "TO RECOGNIZE AS A TOP PRIORITY THE ENHANCEMENT OF THE WALKING EXPERIENCE THROUGHOUT THE VILLAGE' OBJECTIVE 3.1: Physical improve the existing pedestrian ways by landscaping and other improvements. Policy 3.1.3 Flowers, Trees, water and other landscaping shall be encouraged throughout the Town in locations adjacect to, or visible from, public areas. RESOLUTION NO. 7, Series of 2012 says the following: "WHEREAS, the purpose of the amendments is to preserve the existing charter of the townhouse properties in Vail Village and to preserve the existing character of the neighborhood;" #6-3 Vail Row Houses "Redevelopment shall maintain the existing charter of the neighborhood, with the appearance of the two to three story buildings along the street elevation." ARTICLE J. VAIL VILLAGE TOWNHOUSE (VVT) DISTRICT, 12-6J-1: PURPOSE: "The Vail Village townhouse district is intended to ensure adequate light, air, open space, and other amenities commensurate with the Townhomes,..." "More restrictive design considerations have been applied to these properties in accordance with the Vail Village master Plan to maintain the unique residential character of the existing townhouse developments in Vail Village." Rowhouse #7's interpretation of the zoning would allow a house to be surrounded by decks extending 5ft into the setbacks. In this case, an approximately 12ft long deck. Open decks are not defined in the zoning, except in the "LANDSCAPE AREA" definition which says hardscape decks shall "not exceed twenty percent (20%) of the landscape area". Why would (hardscape) decks be limited and not elevated decks? Similarly, walks, patios, terraces, water features are limited to 20%. Why would these be limited and not an overhead deck? Buildings and driveways are specifically excluded from being part of the landscape area. Putting aside the technical issue of site coverage that relates to non landscape area, isn't a deck part of a building? Rowhouse #7's interpretation make no sense when landscaping rules are considered. Their interpretation also is inconsistent with the enabling Documents' stated goals that allowed for VVT District, as well as the goals stated specifically in the VVT. Enabling documents are controlling when interpreting intent. Since the passage of the VV Master Plan, Resolution NO. 7 and the VVT District, the planning department and the DRB have consistently interpreted them in a way that has created more open air space and more trees. The DRB required Rowhouse #8 to have at least 3 trees in its front landscaping after each of its remodels. Look up and down the Gore Creek Drive and you will see Row Houses that are in sync; similar sized decks, built on a similar facade plane, lots of trees and brushes, and visually interesting design elements and entries. Now imagine the Row House and Townhouse lots all with massive decks right up to their parking spaces, with no trees, some potted plants and entries buried under a massive deck. No urban areas allow such townhouse construction. The VV Master Plan and VVT District goals specifically reject such an extreme scenario. Row Houses 8-12 all have the same sized decks because all three architects were told by the town planners that they were limited to 4 feet from the exterior. Everyone wanted larger decks. This is a precedent and the town must follow it's own precedents. Just look around the Vail Village and you'll see everywhere similar sized decks to Row Houses 8-12. Additionally, how does the fire department setup and fight fires when faced with massive decks right up to parked cars and the entry set back under a 12 foot deck? How do occupants escape a burning building when when it is surrounded by massive decks that trap smoke and could as well be on fire? Ignore the goals of the master plan and zoning and precedents of past decisions and you end up with extreme bulk and mass, a wave of massive decks and an awful pedestrian experience. Most importantly, you end up with new Row Houses that destroy the existing character of the neighborhood. Please included me in the DRB meeting by a zoom call. My phone #970-376-8044. Thank You. From: erickson shirley To: Grea Roy; Jonathan Spence; Matt Gennett Cc: Millie Aldrich; Kyle Webb; Adam Harrison; Jim lamont; dick parker Subject: Review of Rowhouse #7"s Proposed Project Date: Wednesday, December 29, 2021 10:15:01 AM Hello Town of Vail Planners and Community Development Department, In a Dec 15th email from Greg to Millie, he writes that #7 is not meeting the minimum landscape requirements. A couple of days prior to the DRB meeting, Jonathan told me, that if #7 didn't comply with zoning, DRB review would end. This is consistent with Charter 11, section 12-11-4, subsection C.2 which states: "If the application is found not to be in compliance with the applicable provisions of the zoning regulations and this subsection C, the application and materials shall be returned to the applicant with an explanation of the administrator's findings." On Dec 15th, a few hours after Greg sent his email to Millie, at the DRB meeting, he introduces a new argument based on his reading of the VVMP that "remodels" are not subject to the mandatory 30% landscape requirement. Instead, he contends the landscape requirements when applied to "remodels" are in fact discretionary, thereby allowing a planner to decide entirely at his discretion on more lenient and undefined landscape requirements. Incidentally, Greg's new argument could be used to circumvent any rule in the VVT where "remodels" are concerned. I have looked at the VVMP and found this: "It is recommended that greater flexibility with the development standards may be necessary to allow these townhouse projects to redevelop. This flexibility may be achieved through the rezoning to the Vail Village Townhouse (VVT)." Pg 42 The VVT section 12-6j-11 says: "At least thirty percent (30%) of the total site area shall be landscaped." Nothing about discretionary relief from this black and white mandatory rule. The VVMP continues from the above quote to say: "However, the granting of variances from the HDMF District or Vail Village Townhouse (VVT) District should consider potential impacts to the character of the neighborhood." Pg 42. In other words, if you don't meet the rules ask for a variance not to the determent of the neighborhood. The VVMP also says: "The purpose of these design considerations is to preserve the unique character of the existing townhouse properties in Vail Village. Redevelopment should be consistent with the existing pedestrian -oriented, urban charter of Vail Village. All demo/rebuild and new construction projects in the Vail Village Townhouse District shall comply with these guidelines. It is understood that renovations to existing buildings may be unable to fully comply with some of these design considerations. Redevelopment to existing buildings will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, with determination of compliance based upon whether the renovation to an existing building meets the general intent of these design considerations." Pg. 43. Apparently, #7 claims to be remodel where less then 50% of the existing building will be demolished. For the above exception to apply, however, #7 must demonstrate that some pre-existing nonconforming feature of their building is unable fully comply with the rules. Not only has #7 made no such claim, but even if they did, how would that justify ignoring mandatory landscaping requirements applicable to the construction of a new deck? Additionally, how does reducing mandatory landscaping requirements, just to get around the rules, meet "the general intent of the design considerations"? #7 could just build under the rules as did Rowhouses 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12. The applicant's planning consultant and the TOV's DRB application manager have alluded that Rowhouses 8-12 were never told that their decks were limited by the zoning rules. The applicant's planning consultant said at the last DRB meeting "these owners' got as much deck as they wanted." This is false. These owners were not given as much deck as they may have wanted, because Rowhouses 8-12 were told in the clearest of terms that decks were limited by the 55% site coverage requirement and 30% landscape requirement. At the time the planners made their decision on deck limits, the planners told all the architects involved that they had given this issue, as well as other front fagade issues, a great deal of thought because their decisions would become precedents. They were correct. Their decisions are precedents and can't be ignored by the new planners. Until the #7's application is compliant with the zoning rules, the TOV planners and DRB must return #7's application pursuant to 12-11-4, C.2. Please give my letter to the DRB. Thanks Erickson From: Dominic Mauriello To: Grea Roy Cc: erickson shirlev; Jonathan Spence; Matt Gennett; Millie Aldrich; Kyle Webb; Adam Harrison; Jim Lamont; dick ap rker; Allison Kent; Matt Mire; Greg Perkins Subject: Re: Review of Rowhouse #7"s Proposed Project Date: Thursday, December 30, 2021 11:51:35 AM Hello Greg: I'd like to clarify that the previous plans submitted for the Ford Residence complied with code as historically interpreted. The previous version of the Ford Plan did not comply with the December 15, 2021 interpretation made by Matt Gennett. Additionally, with this December interpretation, Units 8 (Shirley), 9, 10, and 11 of the Vail Row Houses no longer comply with Town Code with respect to landscaping and landscape area. The approved plans for these homes clearly show that the areas under decks were counted as softscape, non-core development areas. We continue to disagree with the December interpretation and reserve all rights to appeal or otherwise challenge it notwithstanding the fact that we have submitted plans that comply with it. Thanks, Dominic F. Mauriello, AICP Mauriello Planning Group, LLC PO Box 4777 2205 Eagle Ranch Road Eagle, Colorado 81631 970-376-3318 cell httos://link.edL-eoilot.com/s/694ad80c/NG6H3FAv keVDWldXerJ-w? u=http://www.mpgvai1.com On Dec 30, 2021, at 10:02 AM, Greg Roy <GRoyaa.vailgov.com> wrote: Good Morning Mr. Shirley, Attached is a document with a couple of snapshots showing the changes from the plans that were submitted for the meeting on December 15th compared to the most recent plan set uploaded yesterday. In there you can see that the front porch has been pulled back to within three feet of the front wall below and does not overhang any of the softscape landscaping. Similarly in the rear, the patio has been reduced and the deck above was also reduced and does not overhang any softscape landscaping below. With these latest plans it appears the landscaping minimum is now being met. These plans will be available shortly when the agenda and packet for next week's meeting is published. Have a good New Year, Greg Roy, AICP Senior Planner Community Development Department <imaae001.pna> <image002Jpg> 75 South Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 Office: 970.477.3459 aroyra vailaov.com vai laov. com <image003 Jpg> <imaae004.0aa> <imaae005.0aa> From: erickson shirley <ericksonshirleyC@rne.com> Sent: Wednesday, December 29, 20216:28 PM To: Jonathan Spence <JSpenceC@vailgov.com> Cc: Greg Roy <GRoyC@vailgov.com>; Matt Gennett <MGennettC@vailgov.com>; Millie Aldrich<millieCo�puredesign-studio.com>; Kyle Webb <kvleC@khwebb.com>; Adam Harrison <adamhC@sriarchitect.com>; jim lamont <iflamontc@vail.net>; dick parker <rbarkermdC@msn.com>; Allison Kent <allisonC@magvail.com>; Dominic Mauriello <dominicC@magvail.com> Subject: Re: Review of Rowhouse #7's Proposed Project Hello Johnathan, Thank you for timely response. I am, however, unclear as whether you are saying #7 has meet the minimum landscaping requirements? On Dec 15th, Millie was told by planning that #7 had not. Is that still the case? Sent from my iPad On Dec 29, 2021, at 1:33 PM, Jonathan Spence <JSpenceC@vailgov.com> wrote: Good Afternoon Erikson Thank you for the recent correspondence. It will be included with the referenced item in the DRB packet. A few comments concerning your correspondence that might be helpful: • The statement is correct that the applicant must be explicit in any claim regarding existing legal nonconformities. At this time the applicant is asserting that the project does comply with the dimensional standards with the inclusion of the landscaping under the front deck. Staff has disagreed with this and has made a determination to that effect. This determination can be left to stand, resulting in the project not meeting the required standards, or may be called up by the DRB for further discussion. The Town Council also has the ability to call up decisions, administrative or made directly by the DRB. • Staff believes that consistency has been made in the review of all redevelopments occurring in the VVT zone district. The definition of site coverage, included below, explicitly does not include decks as an element (of site coverage): SITE COVERAGE: The ratio of the total building area of a site to the total area of a site, expressed as a percentage. For the purposes of calculating site coverage, "building area of a site" shall mean that portion of a site occupied by any building, carport, porte-cochere, arcade, and covered or roofed walkway constructed at, below, or above grade as measured from the exterior face of the sheathing of the perimeter walls or supporting columns. For the purposes of this definition, a balcony or deck projecting from a higher elevation may extend over a lower balcony, deck or walkway, and in such case the higher balcony or deck shall not be deemed a roof or covering for the lower balcony, deck or walkway. In addition to the above, building area shall also include any portion of a roof overhang, eaves, or covered stair, covered deck, covered porch, covered terrace or covered patio that extends more than four feet (4) from the exterior face of the perimeter building walls or supporting columns. • Decks or other similar core features may be utilized to satisfy up to 20% of the required landscaping, per the definition of landscaping included below: LANDSCAPING. Natural or significant rock outcroppings, native vegetation, planted areas and plant materials, including trees, shrubs, lawns, flowerbeds and ground cover, shall be deemed landscaping together with the core development such as walks, decks, patios, terraces, water features, and like features not occupying more than twenty percent (20%) of the landscaped area • The flexibility noted by Greg Roy at the DRB meeting on December 15th concerned the design standards contained in the VVMP and the specific language in regard to the flexibility contained therein and was not meant to be inferred that it applied to the standards contained in the Vail Town Code concerning landscaping or other dimensional or development standards. • Staff is unaware of any provision of the code that limits the size of a deck in the VVT or any other zone district other than building setbacks (including the allowances of 14-10- 4). Indirectly, decks could be limited by a projects inability to meet other standards but meeting those other standards may be accomplished by other means. If you have any correspondence or know of any code reference overlooked please forward that information to the project planner, Greg Roy. Sincerely, Jonathan Spence, AICP Planning Manager Community Development Department <imaae001.pna> <image002]pg> 75 South Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 Office: 970.479-2321 vai Igov. com From: erickson shirley <ericksonshirleyC@rne.com> Sent: Wednesday, December 29, 202110:15 AM To: Greg Roy <GRoyC@vailgov.com>; Jonathan Spence <JSpenceC@vailgov.com>; Matt Gennett <MGennettC@vailgov.com> Cc: Millie Aldrich<millieCo�puredesign-studio.com>; Kyle Webb <1< leW@khwebb.com>; Adam Harrison <adamhC@sriarchitect.com>; Jim lamont <iflamontC@vail.net>; dick parker <rparkermdC@msn.com> Subject: Review of Rowhouse #7's Proposed Project Hello Town of Vail Planners and Community Development Department, In a Dec 15th email from Greg to Millie, he writes that #7 is not meeting the minimum landscape requirements. A couple of days prior to the DRB meeting, Jonathan told me, that if #7 didn't comply with zoning, DRB review would end. This is consistent with Charter 11, section 12-11-4, subsection C.2 which states: "If the application is found not to be in compliance with the applicable provisions of the zoning regulations and this subsection C, the application and materials shall be returned to the applicant with an explanation of the administrator's findings." On Dec 15th, a few hours after Greg sent his email to Millie, at the DRB meeting, he introduces a new argument based on his reading of the VVMP that "remodels" are not subject to the mandatory 30% landscape requirement. Instead, he contends the landscape requirements when applied to "remodels" are in fact discretionary, thereby allowing a planner to decide entirely at his discretion on more lenient and undefined landscape requirements. Incidentally, Greg's new argument could be used to circumvent any rule in the VVT where "remodels" are concerned. I have looked at the VVMP and found this: "It is recommended that greater flexibility with the development standards may be necessary to allow these townhouse projects to redevelop. This flexibility may be achieved through the rezoning to the Vail Village Townhouse (VVT)." Pg 42. The VVT section 12-6j-11 says: "At least thirty percent (30%) of the total site area shall be landscaped." Nothing about discretionary relief from this black and white mandatory rule. The VVMP continues from the above quote to say: "However, the granting of variances from the HDMF District or Vail Village Townhouse (VVT) District should consider potential impacts to the character of the neighborhood." Pg 42. In other words, if you don't meet the rules ask for a variance not to the determent of the neighborhood. The VVMP also says: "The purpose of these design considerations is to preserve the unique character of the existing townhouse properties in Vail Village. Redevelopment should be consistent with the existing pedestrian - oriented, urban charter of Vail Village. All demo/rebuild and new construction projects in the Vail Village Townhouse District shall comply with these guidelines. It is understood that renovations to existing buildings may be unable to fully comply with some of these design considerations. Redevelopment to existing buildings will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, with determination of compliance based upon whether the renovation to an existing building meets the general intent of these design considerations." Pg. 43. Apparently, #7 claims to be remodel where less then 50% of the existing building will be demolished. For the above exception to apply, however, #7 must demonstrate that some pre-existing nonconforming feature of their building is unable fully comply with the rules. Not only has #7 made no such claim, but even if they did, how would that justify ignoring mandatory landscaping requirements applicable to the construction of a new deck? Additionally, how does reducing mandatory landscaping requirements, just to get around the rules, meet "the general intent of the design considerations"? #7 could just build under the rules as did Rowhouses 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12. The applicant's planning consultant and the TOV's DRB application manager have alluded that Rowhouses 8-12 were never told that their decks were limited by the zoning rules. The applicant's planning consultant said at the last DRB meeting "these owners' got as much deck as they wanted." This is false. These owners were not given as much deck as they may have wanted, because Rowhouses 8-12 were told in the clearest of terms that decks were limited by the 55% site coverage requirement and 30% landscape requirement. At the time the planners made their decision on deck limits, the planners told all the architects involved that they had given this issue, as well as other front facade issues, a great deal of thought because their decisions would become precedents. They were correct. Their decisions are precedents and can't be ignored by the new planners. Until the #7's application is compliant with the zoning rules, the TOV planners and DRB must return #7's application pursuant to 12-11-4, C.2. Please give my letter to the DRB. Thanks Erickson <Plan Changes from 12-15-21 to 1-5-22.pdf> Letters to Vail VAIL HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION TOV/DRB Equal Treatment Controversy Village Row & Townhouses January 3, 2022 There is currently the perception among aggrieved parties of injustice involving the Town of Vail (TOV), its Design Review Board (DRB), Community Development Department (CDD) staff and owners within the Vail Village Town House zone district (VVT) that contains the Vail Row and Townhouses. The controversy involves equal treatment principles related to master planning, zoning and design review and an alleged attempt to avoid compliance with regulatory procedures in the Town Code. Currently, presentations by the public before the Design Review Board are limited to three - minutes, as are those imposed on public presentations before the Town of Vail Town Council and the Planning Commission. The 3 -minute limit denies the public a right to present timely all-inclusive verbal argument. Justice is never served when the public is denied equal treatment and rights to speak and the authorities allow applicants unlimited opportunities to jawbone and dominate the proceedings. Arising from the Vail Row and Town Houses, this dispute involves an applicant making representations alleged to be misleading, neither true nor factual. If ignored, the false representations could damage the integrity of the Town of Vail governance of master planning, zoning and design review mandates. At the next DRB hearing, which could occur as soon as January 5, 2022, aggrieved parties to this discussion may challenge validity of the proceedings. The 3 -minute rule should be suspended to allow non -repetitive, unrestrained, timely testimony from the public which expresses and accurately reflects both public and property owner concerns. The existing limit makes it impossible to present a factual refutation of these alleged falsehoods. Reviewing parties and authorities should be given ample time to give studied consideration and respond to the issue at handand maintain integrity in our process. This is a new format for VHA reports to members. More letters will follow. They will be shorter, easier to read and digest and, generally, address single subjects. VHA hopes these letters will promote more citizen involvement and community discussions of issues facing the Town. Public discussion of current issues by concerned citizens creates an environment to further our community initiatives. We heartily encourage your input and, from time to time, will publish commentary from community members. It is time we talk to each other about the next steps along our road ahead. We hope you will follow or participate in this ongoing VHA discussion. You are welcome to join -in as a paid -subscriber or member. Contact: vailhomeownersassoc(a�gmail.com Post Office Box 238 Vail, Colorado 81658 Telephone: (970) 331-2099 Email: vhaovail.net Website: www.vailhomeowners.com Copyright: 2021 Vail Homeowners Association I PO Box 238, Vail, CO 81658 About Constant Contact Sent by vha(cDvail.net in collaboration with Constant G Contact Try email marketing for free today! Shelley Bellm From: Greg Roy Sent: Wednesday, January 5, 2022 1:05 PM To: Shelley Bellm Subject: FW: DRB21-0496 Welles Family - DRB Submittal (Objection re Final Approval of Lot 7's plans, ) Can we please forward this to the Board? Thanks, Greg Roy, AICP Senior Planner Community Development Department i TOWN Of IEA I CI 75 South Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 Office: 970.477.3459 arovavailaov.com vailqov.com GREAT PLATO WORK' CERTIFIED RI From: William Pierce <bill@vailarchitects.com> Sent: Wednesday, January 5, 2022 11:31 AM To: Greg Roy <GRoy@vailgov.com> Cc: Wendy St. Charles <wstcharles@icloud.com> Subject: FW: DRB21-0496 Welles Family - DRB Submittal (Objection re Final Approval of Lot 7's plans, ) Greg, Greetings. Please forward this memo to the DRB and consider it a portion of the Public Record for DRB 21-0496. I am aware there has been a recent submittal of revised plans for the above referenced Application. On behalf of the Owners of Lot 6B, the Welles Family, I request the DRB table this application to permit the opportunity to review the revisions. Should the DRB consider the Approval of this Application I request that the following conditions be applied to the action of the Board (excerpted from the December 1, 2021, memo below): "Welles respectfully request that the Design Review Board either: (i) table final review of Lot 7's proposed Final Plans" until Welles has an opportunity to review and provide comments and required changes to Lot 7's proposed Final Plans, or (ii) condition Design Review Board approval on the following: 1. That any height increase is approved by Welles under an appropriate joint/adjacent property owner consent; 2. That all changes in loads or otherwise to the party wall be approved by Welles under an appropriate joint/adjacent property owner consent; and 3. That all work or modification to be performed on Lot 6 be approved by Welles as a Lot 6 owner (Unit 6B) under an appropriate joint/adjacent property owner consent." I will participate in the DRB hearing this afternoon. Best Regards, Bill From: "Wendy St. Charles" <wstcharles(a)icloud.com> Subject: Re: DRB21-0496 Welles Family - DRB Submittal (Objection re Final Approval of Lot 7's plans, ) Date: December 15, 2021 at 3:33:32 PM MST To: Greg Roy <GRoy(a)_vailgov.com> Cc: William Pierce < bi I l(a)vai larch itects.com >, Kit Austin < kit(a)vai larch itects.com > Hi Greg, Bill is intending to call in for item 8 of today's DRB agenda (North Fifth LLC). We requested that item 8 be tabled by the applicant until we finalize comments from structural engineers and architects on revised plans just received on Friday. Bill is traveling. I have not been able to reach him to confirm that he can dial in. If Bill is not in attendance, can we ask that his submittal on Dec 1 below be read into the record? (Primarily, Welles, as an adjacent property owner sharing a party wall requests that DRB approval be conditioned upon approval by Lot 6 owners as to work to be performed on Lot 6's exterior and impacts on the party wall.) Thank you for your assistance in confirming, if you can. Wendy Wendy St. Charles, Esq. Wendy R. St. Charles PC 1472 Buffehr Creek Road Vail, CO 81657 wstcharleskicloud.com 303-947-4514 CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE - This e-mail transmission, and any documents, files or previous e- mail messages attached to it may contain information that is confidential or legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you must not read this transmission and that any disclosure, copying, printing, distribution or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this transmission is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately notify the sender by telephone or return e-mail and delete the original transmission and its attachments without reading, storing, printing or saving it in any manner. Thank you. On Dec 1, 2021, at 10:36 AM, Greg Roy <GRoykvai1gov.com> wrote: Thanks Bill, They are requesting a tabling for this item to the December 15th meeting. We will have it for the Board at that meeting. Have a good day, Greg Roy, AICP Senior Planner Community Development Department <image001.png> <image002Jpg> 75 South Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 Office: 970.477.3459 grovCcavailgov.com vailqov.com <image003Jpg> <image004Jpg> <image005Jpg> From: William Pierce <bill@vailarchitects.com> Sent: Wednesday, December 1, 20218:50 AM To: Greg Roy <GRov@vailgov.com> Cc: Wendy St. Charles <wstcharles@icloud.com> Subject: FW: DRB21-0496 Welles Family - DRB Submittal (Objection re Final Approval of Lot 7's plans, ) Importance: High Greg, Please distribute this message regarding Item 1 on today's agenda to the members of the Design Review Board and insert in the official file. Thanks, Bill TOWN OF VAIL DESIGN REVIEW BOARD ATTN: Greg Roy, Planner DATE: 12/1/2021-3:OOPM ITEM/TOPIC: DRB21-0496 - North Fifth LLC Objection Submitted by: The Welles Family, Lot 6 (Unit 6B owner), Vail Village First Filing Property Owner: The Welles Vail, LLC North Fifth LLC is the owner of Lot 7, immediately adjacent to Welles (on Lot 6), and shares a party wall with the Welles. The Welles family respectfully submits objection to the Town of Vail Design Review Board regarding final approval of North Fifth LLC's reconstruction and proposed "Final Plans" until approved by the Welles as an adjacent property owner sharing a party wall with Lot 7, and under a 1964 party wall agreement that restricts any increase in height on Lot 7 unless and until approved by Lot 6 property owners. The Party Wall Agreement was amended as to Lot 7 owner and Welles in 2004 when Lot 7 was last reconstructed to allow for a height increase of the residence on Lot 7 ("2004 Agreement"). The 2004 Agreement requires any further height increase be approved by Welles. A copy of the 2004 Agreement is attached as Exhibit B. A requirement of any height increase for Lot 7 must be reciprocal to Lot 6, subject to Town of Vail approval, as was agreed to in 2004 between Lot 7 and Welles. Welles just received a copy of Lot 7's proposed Final Plans midday November 30, 2021 (yesterday) and has not had a chance to review and consider changes affecting the party wall and modifications Lot 7 proposes to make to improvements on Lot 6 as part of Lot 7's reconstruction. Welles require additional time to consider and approve the proposed final plans with its architects and structural engineers, so to address concerns raised as to Lot 7's project, including as to the integrity of the party wall both during demolition and as a result of any change in loads. Welles respectfully request that the Design Review Board either: (i) table final review of Lot 7's proposed Final Plans" until Welles has an opportunity to review and provide comments and required changes to Lot 7's proposed Final Plans, or (ii) condition Design Review Board approval on the following: 1. That any height increase is approved by Welles under an appropriate joint/adjacent property owner consent; 2. That all changes in loads or otherwise to the party wall be approved by Welles under an appropriate joint/adjacent property owner consent; and 3. That all work or modification to be performed on Lot 6 be approved by Welles as a Lot 6 owner (Unit 6B) under an appropriate joint/adjacent property owner consent. Respectfully Submitted, The Welles Family Property Owner, The Welles-Vail LLC VAIL TOWN PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: 1/5/2022 ITEM/TOPIC: DRB21-0547 - Laird Residence ATTACHM ENTS: File Name Description DRB21-0547 Site Plan.odf DRB21-0547 Site Plan 1967 Circle Drive Survey.odf 1967 Circle Drive Survey KOZ - jNwnN ­.-Jd 0, (.0 < LSM 03'11VA C) HO 31OU13 L96L N, C) EIONIGIS3H G&V� P 00 U, m u, Ln N II II Cli 't tR x x U. U_ Unn Lq In C-4 N cm L9 g Natio nam 000 _j _j =Z1 III I ITL - I, 7� 0 I =Ilff�l I PF —,. --ill :11MZ111 =1 Ull 11 1 E=3 i�-: ;--j!!�. ElItTIRM 4, ffif A 11 :Fl I I =4�! I' I =1 I 1=1 I OAK A 111E�11=1115151i_—II! '11ii -1,= :11 :f=jjff�=f=jI= =1 I 1=1 I 1=1 I I— IN 1----! ;_7� l;=IN 0 7-4:1- -4 1 A 1—III I I �4 V.. LIIP'i 11 T ----- ------------- oo ------ --- ---- --- =1 11-11 1=1 I El I El I I —111-111-1 — —111 1 HE IIIaII—III—_ ia 11 IZZ1 11=111=111=111 =111=111=111=111=111 11 11 i 11 =111=111=111=111:1121<�Il < 11 F- flia 11=1 11=11 El�z it 2. 1 �2 11 IZZ1 11=111=111=12t t4 =1I1=1 I1=1 I1=1 I :Fi It11=II -I=Fi -I=-I4111 2 =1 I 1=1 I 1=1 I 1=1 I I IIS 11 -- =1I E111=111-111=111 U lEawl I =d I=fl i=---------------- - — . I =1 oz — - r ---------- - ----- 1=111 :IIIE911=111=111=111 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - =111=111=111=111=11 I I IZZ1 11=1 11=1 11=1 I I 5 T - ----- ----- --------------------- ------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------- :111E� 11=1 11=11 I= --------- -- -- - z II II CL LLJ 11MZ111=111 11 =111=111= ea KOZ - jNwnN ­.-Jd 0, (.0 < LSM 03'11VA C) HO 31OU13 L96L N, C) EIONIGIS3H G&V� P 00 U, m u, Ln N II II Cli 't tR x x U. U_ Unn Lq In C-4 N cm L9 g Natio nam 000 _j _j =Z1 III I ITL - I, 7� 0 I =Ilff�l I PF —,. --ill :11MZ111 =1 Ull 11 1 E=3 i�-: ;--j!!�. ElItTIRM 4, ffif A 11 :Fl I I =4�! I' I =1 I 1=1 I OAK A 111E�11=1115151i_—II! '11ii -1,= :11 :f=jjff�=f=jI= =1 I 1=1 I 1=1 I I— IN 1----! ;_7� l;=IN 0 7-4:1- -4 1 A 1—III I I �4 V.. LIIP'i 11 T ----- ------------- oo ------ --- ---- --- =1 11-11 1=1 I El I El I I —111-111-1 — —111 1 HE IIIaII—III—_ ia 11 IZZ1 11=111=111=111 =111=111=111=111=111 11 11 i 11 =111=111=111=111:1121<�Il < 11 F- flia 11=1 11=11 El�z it 2. 1 �2 11 IZZ1 11=111=111=12t t4 =1I1=1 I1=1 I1=1 I :Fi It11=II -I=Fi -I=-I4111 2 =1 I 1=1 I 1=1 I 1=1 I I IIS 11 -- =1I E111=111-111=111 U lEawl I =d I=fl i=---------------- - — . I =1 oz — - r ---------- - ----- 1=111 :IIIE911=111=111=111 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - =111=111=111=111=11 I I IZZ1 11=1 11=1 11=1 I I 5 T - ----- ----- --------------------- ------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------- :111E� 11=1 11=11 I= --------- -- -- - z II II CL LLJ 11MZ111=111 11 =111=111= 9900'-(O[6)xe3• 9699-(0a)OQ V dO'IOD ',klNMOD J'ID V J "IIVA A AO MAkOl OI9lE OJ NOISIAIQgnS XAHXD ilaaang `j7z iol me o'a »1'8ui (anmS AIVDIdIIXAD NOIIVDO'I .LNANAAO'd(fWI a2ueb aiog w (IVW DIIldd2 Dodol 9w tlOA3'b E tlOA +�yy z _ �m nozz og n m �x m _o imoz� -oam _000_o 132 3A1a 4 310810 ti ,ONO r-- 7 �o 06l6-66 oNe o daf 06iC-6L'°"'oNxrraa JS we a�w 6LOZIbC/O L '" JS `1e A1M" 9w tlOA3'b E tlOA +�yy z _ �m nozz og n m �x m _o imoz� -oam _000_o 132 3A1a 4 310810 ti ,ONO r-- 7 �o Ad #: EkLvgmemaSfRQPOxwhC7 Customer: Danielle Couch 1/5/22 DRB Notice PROOF OF PUBLICATION VAIL DAILY STATE OF COLORADO) SS COUNTY OF EAGLE) PUBLIC NOTICE I, Mark Wurzer, do solemnly swear that I am Publisher of, says: The Vail NOTICE IS H ERE BY GIVEN that the Desigpn Review Board oftheTown of Vail will hold a ubim Raring. Jan 5, 2022 2:00 in the Town Val, Daily, that the same weekly newspaper printed, in whole or in part and on un at p.m. of ding, 75 South Frontage Road West, VVail.coolol adc. published in the County of Eagle, State of Colorado, and has a general Register inadvance for this webinar: httppss lfus02web. zoom.uslwebinadregisterAMt _ bAK- BERc2RRlkKiFN6gg circulation therein; that said newspaper has been published continuously After registering, you wit receive a confirmation and uninterruptedly in said County of Eagle for a period of more than fifty- eGinaontaininglnfarmatlonaLoutjoining the two consecutive weeks next prior to the first publication of the annexed The applications and information about the proposals are available fol putdic inspection during legal notice or advertisement; that said newspaper has been admitted to 9located regular ers offibQ, office e hownurs o Vailthe o}mmunilect Developm at the Town of Vail Community Devehpmeat Department, 75 South Frontage Road West. The the United States mails as a periodical under the provisions of the Act of p:ublicisafso.ins,itedtoattend projectorientation and March 3, 1879, or any amendments thereof, and that said newspaper is a site visits which precede the public hearing in the 479-21-18T rMnoi�n,�io uliT'nE Design Revieweoard agenda will be available on the Town of Vail official weekly newspaper duly qualified for publishing legal notices and Ve9sote�24mhours prior tothe publichearing: www. advertisements within the meaning of the laws of the State of Colorado. TOWN OF VAIL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT That the annexed legal notice or advertisement was published in the Please call 970479-2138 for additional information. regular and entire issue of every number of said weekly newspaper for the Si n lanhguage interpretation av lable upon request wi 24- aur i uficatlon. dial 711. PUBLISHED IN THE VAIL DAILY ON FRIDAY, period of 1 insertion; and that the first publication of said notice was in the DECEMBER 31.2021. issue of said newspaper dated 31 Dec 2021 in the issue of said newspaper. Total cost for publication: $24.99 That said newspaper was regularly issued and circulated on those dates. Publi her Subscribed to and sworn to me this date, 12/31/2021 V�0Ua� Notary Public, Eagle County, Colorado My commission expires: August 19, 2024 Lori A McCole NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF COLORADO NOTARY ID 20204031017 MY COMMSSION EXPIRES SW—bergth.2024 1/5/22 DRB Notice - Page 1 of 1